Talk about "luck". I happened to have two identical Ymf719 sound cards and both are acting faulty.

The second one is better than the first one but it is :
1.terribly noisy
2. Has distortion on audio and some FM ( ex : https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43851675/OPL3SAX/Ymf … stoDemo%29.flac

3. Descent intro sounds like its underwater : https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43851675/OPL3SAX/Des … o%20amp%29.flac

Im not going to bother making further recordings with those cards as obviously something is wrong. Anyone here has these cards and experienced such issues?

Btw here's what they look like:

I've got a YMF-718 and a YMF-719 and haven't encountered the issues you describe. Possibly dried out caps?

DonutKing wrote:

I've got a YMF-718 and a YMF-719 and haven't encountered the issues you describe. Possibly dried out caps?

Quite possibly, probably the first thing to do would be to recap the boards.

MaxWar wrote:

Btw here's what they look like: http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb408/evilmaxwar/Sound%20Card%20collection/ymf719e-s.jpg […]
Show full quote

Btw here's what they look like:

I found your problem: the audio output jumpers are set up wrong. Look at the diagram in the middle of the card. You have it set to Speaker Out and not Line Out. Speaker Out on this card is a mess, and is actually so damn loud, if I were to attempt to pass the audio from this card into my laptop (I have an identical card in a Samsung 386SX-based computer), not only do I hear massively distorted audio on my headphones, I also get loud crackling noises out of my laptop's speakers! Relocate those jumpers first, then check the card for faults.

I'd like to hear all the different OPL3 subsitutes take on this song, since Youtube only has different wavetable renditions

Ace wrote:

I found your problem: the audio output jumpers are set up wrong. Look at the diagram in the middle of the card. You have it set to Speaker Out and not Line Out. Speaker Out on this card is a mess, and is actually so damn loud, if I were to attempt to pass the audio from this card into my laptop (I have an identical card in a Samsung 386SX-based computer), not only do I hear massively distorted audio on my headphones, I also get loud crackling noises out of my laptop's speakers! Relocate those jumpers first, then check the card for faults.

Wish it was the jumpers 😜 Both of my cards were in the line out setting when i used them.
This picture was taken when i first acquired the card, just after i took it out of the box, i always take a picture of my cards the moment i get them.
I also inspected the board for physical damage (nothing obvious) and straightened all the connector pins prior to testing. Nice observation though.

When i was troubleshooting the card i did try to put it back in the original speaker position just to see what would happen and the output was so loud it was obscene.

In any circumstances further troubleshooting on these cards has been put back to the far end of my "to do" list. I have many more sound cards that need testing.

If someone here wants to take care of the Yamaha Ymf719, consider the position open 😁

@Leileilol : Oh this happens to be one of my favorite midi song, i may do a little special for this one. Once I have my whole collection of cards recorded i could do some sort of "best of" compilation using the most interesting sound card specimens.

I don't know how alarming this is, but I think the standard recording method document could define some additional info regarding how the bit depth should be reduced to 16 bits, so that different people do not do that with different dithering methods.

Every time the bit depth is reduced, Audacity applies the selected dithering method to use (none, noise, triangle, shaped).

I suggest triangle or noise, but someone else can decide. More info lies in the Audacity documentation wiki.

Jepael wrote:

I don't know how alarming this is, but I think the standard recording method document could define some additional info regarding how the bit depth should be reduced to 16 bits, so that different people do not do that with different dithering methods.

Every time the bit depth is reduced, Audacity applies the selected dithering method to use (none, noise, triangle, shaped).

I suggest triangle or noise, but someone else can decide. More info lies in the Audacity documentation wiki.

You are right, i did not mention this and my program is set to the Default "Shaped" :s

This being said i am wondering if the Flac encoder might not have its own dithering algorithm. That would need some investigation. Do you know about that Jepael?
Ill try to write something about that in the recording method section this weekend.

I will also take advantage of this occasion to leak the name of the card i started recording tonight. Samples will be released this weekend.

Its a 8 bit card right out of the legendary past.

The MediaVision ThunderBoard 😁

MaxWar wrote:

This being said i am wondering if the Flac encoder might not have its own dithering algorithm. That would need some investigation. Do you know about that Jepael?

Well, I could not find anything that FLAC is capable of reducing bit depth before encoding. It is a lossless encoder so everything fed to it must come out identically to the original, so would it even make sense for the FLAC encoder to be able to reduce bit depth. But I do not know how the FLAC plugin does it.

Also since many encoder plugins or export formats only support certain bit depths, it is Audacity that must be able convert the original format to be suitable for a plugin anyway, I am under the impression it is Audacity that is responsible for bit reduction and dithering before encoding with a plugin.

(Though for some lossy formats like MP3, the bit depth is irrelevant, as you can encode 24-bit material to MP3 and later decode it with only 16-bit resolution, or the other way around).

OFFICIAL FILE UPDATE #4
This is the MediaVision ThunderBoard update. All files are online at the https://sites.google.com/site/soundcardcomparison/home.

You can update your collection with this link: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzsnL20-4a37clRzRmVjOWEycjg

*I also added a note about the Dithering setting in Audacity in the Recording method section of the website.

THE MEDIAVISION THUNDERBOARD!!

Overview: The ThunderBoard was MediaVision's answer to the Sound Blaster. In other words, a sound blaster clone. Since their ori […]
Show full quote

Overview:
The ThunderBoard was MediaVision's answer to the Sound Blaster. In other words, a sound blaster clone. Since their original Pro Audio Spectrum was not compatible with the sound blaster digital audio standard they made this card to fill the void. The chip it uses was later used in the Pro audioSpectrum plus and The PAS 16.

As a sound blaster substitute its actually quite decent.
You have jumpers on the card to configure the adress settings but otherwise this card is pretty much as plug&play as it gets. I did not even need to install a driver in DOS. I just plugged that thing in. Without adding anything in the Config and autoexec files, it just worked in all the games i tried. Now this ease of use level is not the most common thing you would have experienced back in the days. This being said there is a "driver" package I did install but all it did was copy some relevant (optional) utilities on the HDD.

Sound wise its good but I still prefer the original sound blasters 1.5 and 2.0 . The ThunderBoard sounds a little more boomy (no pun intended ) and i think the SB cards are a little more balanced. The compatibility is not perfect either, i did not get music in Comanche Maximum overkill and Monkey island was very messed up ( see the recording its quite funny).
This being said, Monkey island seems to never work properly with OPL2 based sound blaster clones.

The output is also a bit more noisy the the original sound blasters. It seems that it is coming from the digital audio engine. If I deactivate the sound effect in a game an leave only FM music, i notice the noise level is much lower. Games like Wolf3d are most affected.

As a conclusion, the Thunderboard is a nice card and a very decent SB clone. You would not have felt left out using it back in the day, unless CMS was your thing, then you would have been jealous of your neighbor with his soundblaster 1.0
Nowaday its still a nice card to have for a collecting point of view. Its also a nice card to use in a retro rig if you do not have access to an original sound blaster but I dont see a reason to use it if you can use a real sound blaster instead. The real thing gets you better compatibility, slightly cleaner output and CMS compatibility as an option.

OFFICIAL UPDATE #5

This is the Sound Blaster Pro 2 update (CT1600)

You can download the files in one go here : https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzsnL20-4a37UFUxMGgzcFlONkk

Or you can go directly to the grand OPL3 Comparison run site:
https://sites.google.com/site/soundcardcomparison/

I felt many things should be said about this card and i fear my short description might be a bit lackluster. If you have some suggestion and relevant infos please share.
I really think i should be trying to turn this project into a kind of Open to all Wiki...

And sry for the long time since laste update, too many geeky projects at the same time 🤣.

The sound blaster Pro 2 is a well loved sound card, and for good reasons. It is a landmark card often used to compare other cards. ... ( add blah blah... )
I found the output quality to be quite good. Noise level is low, no audible distortion and it packs alot of power in the bass section. When connected to my main sound system this card could generate some quality wall rumbling, I remember thinking how this was a badass card. However when compared to some of my favourite sounding sound cards, I actually find it a bit too boomy. The higher frequencies are cut low and it lacks a bit in brightness for my taste. It is in no way a deal breaker as this card is renowned for its compatibility good quality. You can always EQ it to taste. The mixer settings has a Low pass filter that is on by default. You can deactivate it with the SBP-SET utils included in the drivers. It is supposed to only be applied to Digital audio and not FM, however i did not try it myself and the recordings were done with the default settings.

I think your issues with the ATI Stereo F/X and Mediavision Thunderboard and Monkey Island and Commanche : Maximum Overkill have nothing to do with the compatibility of the cards themselves. You are running these games and recording from them on an Intel Celeron 500MHz system. The system is way too fast for OPL2 chip, and the issues will show up on a true Sound Blaster or Ad Lib as well. Slow the machine down as much as possible and try running these games again.

I agree with Great Hierophant that all the games that were targeted for a 286 system like Dune, Monkey Island etc. should be recorded at thsi speed. The issues you describe are the same that appear if you run the game on a fast PC. You should consider that music playback routines are always timed routines and depending on implementation it can be critical that the timing routines mess up on fast CPUs.
On my K6 system MI messes up already at about 200 MHz and works good at lower speed. But going to 386 level performance is much more reliable with the timing of old music playback routines.

Great Hierophant wrote:

I think your issues with the ATI Stereo F/X and Mediavision Thunderboard and Monkey Island and Commanche : Maximum Overkill have nothing to do with the compatibility of the cards themselves. You are running these games and recording from them on an Intel Celeron 500MHz system. The system is way too fast for OPL2 chip, and the issues will show up on a true Sound Blaster or Ad Lib as well. Slow the machine down as much as possible and try running these games again.

The SFX and Thunderboard recordings were done on my 486.
Lately ive beeen using mostly my 486 instead of the celeron as i get stuttering audio with The Dig on the Celeron. The 486 is overdriven with an evergreen 5x86 upgrade though. However i tested my real SB 2.0 (CT1350b) on the celeron 500 and monkey island played fine.

I agree further testing could be done with many of these cards. I have about 50 cards in total i want to record so i was a bit hasty on side testings sometimes.

This makes me realize however that i should always indicate what system was used for each card, considering how i sometime use the 486 and sometimes the Celeron , sometimes both. When i get issues with a card on one system i usually test it in the other. From now on i will specify the system used on all my tests.

In any case my 386 has the SFX drivers already on it. I could install monkey island on it and give it a go. Would this rule out the CPU speed possibility? :p

Edit: typo

This comparison is quite interesting however, there are a few errors:
#1 It seems like a lot of people actually can't tell genuine OPL3 when they hear it. A lot of Vibra-16s have OPL3, even if there is not a YMF262 present (the FM is actually integrated like CT1747: which in some cases, sounds more pleasant than YMF262). In other words, it's essentially a YMF262 integrated inside a creative chip...
This is quite unfortunate because we have a lot of people who are throwing out or desregarding genuine OPL3 sound cards.
I believe the CT4180 as aforementioned actually does have genuine YMF262 integrated in the CT2505-TDQ2 chip (which is labeled Vibra16C, not "S" or "XV").

#2 ESFM (ESS's FM implementation) is hit or miss. Some MIDIs it can sound absolutely fantastic, other ones, it does not. Also behaving to certain commands, it can become distorted in higher frequencies.
--> if the audio sounds thin, that is due to the card's implementation and not ESFM itself.

#3 Crystal FM Synthesis! This is probably my favourite due to the distinctive "square hats" in the percussion, as well as that traveling hissy cymbal. There were different versions of this manufactured by crystal, some earlier versions having broken FM, but the good ones are quite nice.

I actually talked about the OPL3 variants here. As well as recordings of these awesome variants... typically I run dual OPL3 which is a Crystal FM and YMF262 in unison.

raymangold22 wrote:

#1 It seems like a lot of people actually can't tell genuine OPL3 when they hear it. A lot of Vibra-16s have OPL3, even if there is not a YMF262 present (the FM is actually integrated like CT1747: which in some cases, sounds more pleasant than YMF262). In other words, it's essentially a YMF262 integrated inside a creative chip...
This is quite unfortunate because we have a lot of people who are throwing out or desregarding genuine OPL3 sound cards.
I believe the CT4180 as aforementioned actually does have genuine YMF262 integrated in the CT2505-TDQ2 chip (which is labeled Vibra16C, not "S" or "XV").

You, sir, are WRONG. If a SoundBlaster does not have a YMF262, CT1747, YMF289 or any other chip with an OPL logo on the chip itself, it DOES NOT have OPL3. Those have CQM, which is quite inaccurate to true OPL3.

Ace wrote:

You, sir, are WRONG. If a SoundBlaster does not have a YMF262, CT1747, YMF289 or any other chip with an OPL logo on the chip itself, it DOES NOT have OPL3. Those have CQM, which is quite inaccurate to true OPL3.

I do know what "CQM" is, and I've observed it extensively on the later AWE32 I have. The bass response is incorrect, and the noise generator is way off (much like DOSBox).

I'll start to do recording tests tomorrow. I believe the Vibra16C chip has the CT1747 integrated inside it (Vibra16XVs do not, purely CQM). This would make sense from what I heard after playing some MIDIs, but I'll do some recordings of it tomorrow once I get home.

For the record, if I'm not mistaken, CQM wasn't around in 1995 yet. IT just so happens that the CT2505-TDQ2 chip on the 4180 Vibra16s were made in 1995 (as per this photo).
So if this was the case, the chip would have no choice but to integrate CT1747, thus being genuine YMF262.

We'll soon know, tomorrow.

raymangold22 wrote:

This comparison is quite interesting however, there are a few errors: #1 It seems like a lot of people actually can't tell genui […]
Show full quote

This comparison is quite interesting however, there are a few errors:
#1 It seems like a lot of people actually can't tell genuine OPL3 when they hear it. A lot of Vibra-16s have OPL3, even if there is not a YMF262 present (the FM is actually integrated like CT1747: which in some cases, sounds more pleasant than YMF262). In other words, it's essentially a YMF262 integrated inside a creative chip...
This is quite unfortunate because we have a lot of people who are throwing out or desregarding genuine OPL3 sound cards.
I believe the CT4180 as aforementioned actually does have genuine YMF262 integrated in the CT2505-TDQ2 chip (which is labeled Vibra16C, not "S" or "XV").

#2 ESFM (ESS's FM implementation) is hit or miss. Some MIDIs it can sound absolutely fantastic, other ones, it does not. Also behaving to certain commands, it can become distorted in higher frequencies.
--> if the audio sounds thin, that is due to the card's implementation and not ESFM itself.

#3 Crystal FM Synthesis! This is probably my favourite due to the distinctive "square hats" in the percussion, as well as that traveling hissy cymbal. There were different versions of this manufactured by crystal, some earlier versions having broken FM, but the good ones are quite nice.

I actually talked about the OPL3 variants here. As well as recordings of these awesome variants... typically I run dual OPL3 which is a Crystal FM and YMF262 in unison.

I only recorded 2 Vibra cards so far. The CT4180 and the CT2260 (genuine YMF262). Maybe the OPL3 is integrated on the CT1747 as you say and maybe it sounds like a real yamaha chip i just do not know. What i know is that the CT4180 does not sound like a real opl3 to me. In fact, it sounds almost identical to the SB32 (CT3600)

The best way to appreciate the magnitude of the difference with my recordings is with Descent intro.
Listen to Descent intro With CT4180(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43851675/CT4180/Desc … ibra16c%29.flac) and CT3600(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43851675/CT3600/Desce … tro-CT3600.flac), pretty similar uh?
Then listen to it with a typical good quality opl3 chipped card such Rock16 (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43851675/MAD16/descen … ntro-MAD16.flac)or earlier sound blasters.

The bassy lead synth at the beginning is very different on the integrated creative chips, quite duller in fact. This is the most flagrant example i think but other differences are here also, such as more `chimey` or sort of `metallic`sounding hi hats. Basically i find the CT4180 to be very consistent with CT3600, a card which i was led to believe was a prime example of the CQM clones.

This sound similarity is the reason why I affirmed with alot of certitude that the CT4180 is a clone. I appreciate your input rayman and this is a nice example of how recordings can help solve questions like that. Im definitely looking forward to getting samples from other vibra card and see how some of em might be surprisingly interesting.
About the crystal FM, i sure do not like the card i have here, but curious as to hear other variants. Im not one of those who spits on anything that is not a tru branded yamaha chip, even though from all my experiment so far i definitely like the real chip bettter.

Oh And I like that Dual OPL3 setup that you use, ill have to try that one day 😁

Edit: Added links for your convenience!

raymangold22 wrote:

For the record, if I'm not mistaken, CQM wasn't around in 1995 yet. IT just so happens that the CT2505-TDQ2 chip on the 4180 Vibra16s were made in 1995 (as per this photo).
So if this was the case, the chip would have no choice but to integrate CT1747, thus being genuine YMF262.

I have two different Vibra16Cs, a CT2960 and CT4180. I KNOW the sound of CQM, and I can assure you the CT2505-TDQ2 has CQM just like my SoundBlaster 32 PnP CT3600, SoundBlaster 16 CT2940, SoundBlaster 16 WavEffects CT4170 and my two SoundBlaster AWE64 CT4520s.

Now now, it's possible that Creative DID make a non-CQM sub-variant, seeing how Creative sure was fond of them. Let's hear his recording and judge from that.